Choosing a new Mobo for my new DAW???

[southpaw76]

Hello folks,
I'm building a new DAW for sequencing, but I'm having a little trouble choosing a mobo. It's been a while since I've built one and now all I read about is multi-core cpu's and what not. As far as chipsets go I would be ok with either Intel or AMD. I'm definitely interested in SATA especially SATAII, I'm also interested in USB 2.0, and Firewire 400 and if possible Firewire 800. Any suggestions???

[Stumpy]

look on the software sites for your sequencing/recording software. See what they are compatible with and then go to town.

Do not be affraid of the AMD anymore. Most of the old issues that caused most folks to run to the intel with the intel 815e chipset are gone.

JMHO

[kevinmoore73]

Well, after getting burned by AMD's poor PCI bus implementation with their 760MPX chipset, I certainly won't be buying an AMD machine for a while. The 66MHz 64-bit PCI slots on my motherboard perform like crap. (Well, at least no better than a 33MHz 32-bit slot.)

I'll be going Intel all the way the next time around, though likely in the form of an eight core Mac.

[seamonkey]

I'm convinced it's better to get several lower cost PCs and separate their function. One for Audio, one for samplers, VSTs, ... just mix it up. It's just much cheaper to buy last year's (or older) technology and it still performs just fine. When you try to squeeze everything onto one PC then the OS just gets in the way.

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by seamonkey

I'm convinced it's better to get several lower cost PCs and separate their function. One for Audio, one for samplers, VSTs, ... just mix it up.

I'm all for separating by function if you're talking about client vs. server tasks, but what you're saying is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by seamonkey

It's just much cheaper to buy last year's (or older) technology and it still performs just fine. When you try to squeeze everything onto one PC then the OS just gets in the way.

I'll agree with you about last year's technology being cheaper; however, how are multiple copies of an OS better than one?

This reminds me of those people that say that a DAW should never be connected to the Internet as if networking a computer causes evil mystic voodoo to limit the effectiveness of the workstation.

[seamonkey]

Run ipMidi, midioverlan, FX Teleport, or similar, to allow one PC to drive another. Samplers, Effects, and audio are competing with each other for CPU time. And the OS isn't trying to portion it out.

Keep it off the internet so you don't have to run anti-virus, spyware scans, firewalls, etc.

You do whatever you want. You may never run into trouble.

[Plain Old Me]

IMO, unless you are doing more than 8 tracks at the same time (including FX and such) you will not need more than 1 PC to get the job done. It depends more on the interface anyway, as streaming audio to tracks never seems to take more than half of my CPU, even on my very mediocre, 2 year old laptop. As far as mobos go, definitely try to find one with the best firewire, else get a nice firewire card. Almost all mobos have SATA of some sort these days, but its to be honest it does not make much of a difference. If you want more HD speed, the best way is to set up some sort of RAID system, and if you want to do that you will need a mobo capable of doing it or a good RAID card. If you want ultimate performance, the X38 (and soon X48) chip sets are at the leading edge. The next EVGA chip set will probably have better performance, but its release is still a ways off. Intel is pretty much the way to go as far as ultimate performance goes, but AMD does compete well in the lower price ranges. To be honest though, as long as you get a decent (at least 2 core) processor, then it comes down pretty much to interface. The better interfaces can do more with less load on the CPU.

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by seamonkey

Run ipMidi, midioverlan, FX Teleport, or similar, to allow one PC to drive another. Samplers, Effects, and audio are competing with each other for CPU time. And the OS isn't trying to portion it out.

No, you just have multiple OS installations portioning it out. A single beefy machine is all you really need. Multiple machines just add overhead.

Originally Posted by seamonkey

Keep it off the internet so you don't have to run anti-virus, spyware scans, firewalls, etc.

You don't need to have any of those things on a machine connected to the Internet. Software firewalls are stupid. Use a hardware firewall and you'll be better protected. Antivirus can be disabled during recording, if you really want to. I leave mine on as its footprint isn't that large. As for spyware scans, that isn't something anyone should need to have running all the time.

A lot of these issues can be avoided if you're smart about what you do on the Internet. The Internet itself doesn't create the need for antivirus and spyware scanners. Computer users themselves create the need for these things.

Originally Posted by seamonkey

You do whatever you want. You may never run into trouble.

I have a magic pebble that wards off bear attacks. In the several years I've been carrying the pebble I haven't been attacked by a bear once. It must be working!

Oh, and +1 to everything POM said.

[J.Stone]

Originally Posted by southpaw76

It's been a while since I've built one and now all I read about is multi-core cpu's and what not. As far as chipsets go I would be ok with either Intel or AMD. I'm definitely interested in SATA especially SATAII, I'm also interested in USB 2.0, and Firewire 400 and if possible Firewire 800. Any suggestions???

If we're talking Standard ATX then the CLEAR choice for CPU is an Intel Core2Duo. The entier range has recently (last yearish) been slashed greatly in price. I think it's actually gone through a second cut...That combined with the quality and power of the CPUs Intel provide makes them the best choice.

Just as a side note, I'd recommend any motherboard with the P35 Chipset. Great little beamer that one.

[locolobo85]

When building I always start on E-bay and basically find the processor first while using Ewiz.com to shop boards and see if the chip I'm looking at mates up with a board that offers what I'm looking for. My last few builds have all been made up of used cpus and used ram mounted to a the best ASUS board I could mount them to. All turned out great.

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by J.Stone

If we're talking Standard ATX then the CLEAR choice for CPU is an Intel Core2Duo.

Agreed, though I think a Core 2 Quad would be even better. It's what I would use if I were building a single-socket PC today.

[locolobo85]

How much of today's music software is actually capable of utilizing the upper end of today's latest and greatest technology?

[locolobo85]

I light of your chip choice:

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=MB-P5K3DLX

...or you could go the Extreme route for a few $$$ more.

I just like the ASUS stuff and have always gotten good results and good support when, and rarely if, it was needed. They sent me a I/O shield once as a courtesy. That's pretty rare in this day and age.

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by locolobo85

How much of today's music software is actually capable of utilizing the upper end of today's latest and greatest technology?

More of it every day. I've owned dual-processor machines for many years. When I built my first one, multi-threaded software was a rarity. I mostly enjoyed the benefit of having another processor to perform other tasks. Back in the early days of CD burning (and before buffer under-run protection) most people wouldn't use their computer for other tasks while burning to avoid making coasters. That wasn't something I had to worry about. Now that multi-core processors are becoming more widespread, many software vendors have started releasing multi-threaded versions of their software. The situation is getting better all the time, but there's still a long way to go. As anyone who has taken a systems programming class can tell you, multi-threaded programming is hard.

[southpaw76]

Thanks for all responses guys . It's been a while since I've built a PC box. I believe the last box I built used a Northwood core P4, several years ago. So basically what I need to be looking for is an Asus board with x35 chipset coupled with an Intel Core2 Duo, sounds about right???

[locolobo85]

That sounds like the start of a good system to me.

[J.Stone]

Originally Posted by southpaw76

Asus board with x35 chipset coupled with an Intel Core2 Duo

X35 isn't out yet. X38 and X48 are. They apparently rock socks. I recommend the X38 + DDR2. DDR3 is just a waste of money. The Intel E6550 looks like the best value for money CPU from where I'm sitting too.

[HolmeBass]

Originally Posted by kevinmoore73

No, you just have multiple OS installations portioning it out. A single beefy machine is all you really need. Multiple machines just add overhead.

I strongly disagree- and the world of clustered computing agrees with me. Do you ever use Google?

Multiple PCs add more computing power than they add overhead, and getting just one task actually drawing CPU on each PC is going to *greatly* improve performance, not only by bypassing Winblows brain-dead prioritization but also by stopping memory swapping as each different app queues up for it's time slice of CPU.

It's really the swapping of memory space that will kill your latency. Of course you could throw RAM at it, but somehow Winblows will still always want to swap when it's "multi-tasking". I think you're missing a great point here- why not *at the very least* run your VSTs on a separate PC?

[DocBop]

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

I strongly disagree- and the world of clustered computing agrees with me. Do you ever use Google?

Multiple PCs add more computing power than they add overhead, and getting just one task actually drawing CPU on each PC is going to *greatly* improve performance, not only by bypassing Winblows brain-dead prioritization but also by stopping memory swapping as each different app queues up for it's time slice of CPU.

It's really the swapping of memory space that will kill your latency. Of course you could throw RAM at it, but somehow Winblows will still always want to swap when it's "multi-tasking". I think you're missing a great point here- why not *at the very least* run your VSTs on a separate PC?

I agree with Kevin mutiple PC are add overhead and DAW's are so time critical it is going to work. For parallel processing you need not only compilers that support parallel processing but OS too or at least special applications to scatter/gather the processes. Look at the app's like Google that use CPU farms they are not time sentive. The internet is self is so enough that things like that can work. Apple Logic does have mutl-node support, but even that it is very limited on what a node can do.

If you ever study systems programming you will find Windows uses one of the more efficient models, second on to SunOS. Also as Kevin points out not a lot of people really know how to write muti-threaded code. Most over use threading and end up choking the app. You don't see apps that really have a lot of multi-threaded intelligence and tuning until you get to large database software. Animation uses a lot via render farms, but they are not time sensitive they are just raw power.

A multi-core CPU and lots of RAM is a easy way to gain speed.

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

I strongly disagree- and the world of clustered computing agrees with me. Do you ever use Google?

I build clusters *for a living* and still stand by every word that I said. The OP asked, "I'm building a new DAW for sequencing, but I'm having a little trouble choosing a mobo" and someone suggested he use multiple PCs. Give me a break. This guy isn't trying to run a search engine. He wants to record some audio at home. I still maintain that a single decent PC will perform better than several cheaper machines.

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

Multiple PCs add more computing power than they add overhead, and getting just one task actually drawing CPU on each PC is going to *greatly* improve performance, not only by bypassing Winblows brain-dead prioritization but also by stopping memory swapping as each different app queues up for it's time slice of CPU.

So you're trying to tell me that the latency between processes on two machines communicating over a network is going to be lower than the latency of two processes communicating with each other within the same machine? Please.

Tell you what, how about you use Google to learn about what's involved with clustering?

Originally Posted by HolmeBass

It's really the swapping of memory space that will kill your latency. Of course you could throw RAM at it, but somehow Winblows will still always want to swap when it's "multi-tasking". I think you're missing a great point here- why not *at the very least* run your VSTs on a separate PC?

"Winblows"? How, um, credible of you. Do you type Microsoft as "Micro$oft"?

Again, look at what the OP is asking. He wasn't asking how he could maximize his investment in his old pile of 486s. He's asking what to buy new, right now. Advice that he should buy two or more older and cheaper machines instead of one fast one is ridiculous.